On 13 Apr 2001, at 14:02, CCS wrote:
> Sure they have a right... It is disturbing that
(1) they would do do something so stupid as require something that cannot be enforced
> and
Again CCS, they can enforce it after the fact by removing the
user's privilege...and that is good enough
(2) require something which, if adhered to, would make their
> product useless AS MONEY.
I disagree with that as I explain in my previous post. All that a user
can't do with his goldgrams is to create a legal encumbrance on
them. That is all. He can promise to pay with them at a later
date...that is no problem.
> However, I think this is probably all beside the point because
> we are misunderstanding the meaning of the clause in the user
> agreement.
Possible... I have asked for GoldMoney's interpretation on this.
> However, GoldMoney's user agreement certainly invites
> this misunderstanding and I think they should revise it for
> clarity.
You may be right. But I think it is clear. An encumbrance on a gold
gram is something that must be created in a legal contract
explicitely giving the goldgram as a collateral value ... This is what
is not allowed.
Claude
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
